Jalaluddin Haqqani, Once CIA's 'Blue-Eyed Boy,' Now Top Scourge For U.S. In Afghanistan

WASHINGTON -- The U.S.'s new public enemy No. 1 in Afghanistan is one of its own making.

Ten years into the occupation of Afghanistan, American officials describe the militia led by Jalaluddin Haqqani as the country's deadliest insurgent group, responsible for a slew of particularly bold attacks, including the day-long assault three weeks ago on the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

But Haqqani's rise to power can be traced directly back to the secret, multi-billion-dollar U.S. campaign to create a radicalized and well-equipped army of Islamic jihadists -- known as the mujahideen -- to lead a war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Back then, when a top U.S. foreign policy goal was to bog the invading Soviets down in Afghanistan, the ferocious Haqqani was one of the CIA's favorite commanders, showered with money and shoulder-fired missiles and other weapons -- and sent out to repel the foreign occupiers.

"We facilitated his rise -- we and the Saudis and Pakistani intelligence," said Steve Coll, author of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001."

"In Afghanistan, what goes around comes around is sort of the lesson of the last 30 years," he said.

Haqqani was admired for being particularly tough and ruthless. "There was a bit of a racist attitude about the Afghans" among the Saudi, Pakistani and U.S. intelligence services, Coll said. Haqqani "was everybody's idea of the noble savage."

Peter Tomsen, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, told PBS Frontline in 2006 that the CIA "gave Haqqani the infrastructure" to build his network.

"It is certainly quite plausible to argue that the group is stronger today than it would have been without the assistance rendered back in the 1980s," said Paul R. Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst who now teaches at Georgetown University.

Haqqani is said to have introduced suicide bombing as a tactic in Afghanistan. But back then, Haqqani's radicalism and profoundly anti-Western views weren't a liability -- they were an asset. Set on making things as difficult for the Soviets as possible, the U.S. was pushing a militant strain of Islam into the traditionally more moderate Afghan culture, by doing such things as spending $51 million to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings.

But after the Soviets left Afghanistan -- more than 22 years ago now -- so did the CIA. What the Americans left behind was a generation steeped in violence, warlords inflamed with hatred of foreign invaders -- and those schoolbooks, which for years served as the Afghan school system's core curriculum.

Then, on Oct. 7, 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks; for the last 10 years, it's been the Americans' turn to be the foreign occupiers.

Now, from his base in Pakistan's North Waziristan region, an essentially ungoverned area near the border of Afghanistan, Haqqani leads the "Haqqani network," which The New York Times recently likened to "the Sopranos of the Afghanistan war."

The man who introduced suicide bombings to Afghanistan has made "complex and strategic suicide attacks" against Western targets, like embassies and hotels, the calling card of his network.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made headlines three weeks ago when he singled out the Haqqani network in his testimony before a Senate committee and then described the group as "a veritable arm" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

Other U.S. officials have since tried to walk back Mullen's comment, but not before it triggered a nationalist backlash in Pakistan and whipped up media fears there of an imminent U.S. invasion.

In remarks to Al Jazeera television, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar fired back at Mullen. "If we talk about links, I am sure the CIA also has links with many terrorist organizations around the world, by which we mean intelligence links," she said. "And this particular network, that they continue to talk about, is a network which was the blue-eyed boy of the CIA itself for many years. I mean, it was created by the CIA, it could be said."

The charge also led the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. to delightedly show an Indian television reporter a clip on his cell phone of President Ronald Reagan hosting Haqqani at the White House -- although it later turned out that the picture was not of Haqqani, but of a different mujahideen entirely.

Despite the crucial context it provides for the war that ensued, the history of American intervention in Afghanistan has been largely overlooked -- as it was in media coverage of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, a journalistic husband-and-wife-team who have reported extensively about Afghanistan, wrote in 2009 about what happened after the CIA left Afghanistan in the late 1980s: "The Afghan people were left to deal with the blowback from the mujahideen fighters who had been supported by the largest publicly known U.S. covert operation since Vietnam. Over the next few years that process would give rise to the Taliban and morph into the threat the U.S. faces today."

So's Obama can put some boots onna ground to kick some Haqqani heiney...House votes to label Haqqani Network a terrorist organizationJuly 17th, 2012 - The House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday calling on the Obama administration to add a Pakistan-based terror group to the list of organizations designated as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO).

"The Haqqani Network is engaged in a reign of terror in Afghanistan and is the single largest threat for IED's our soldiers face in that country," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "They actively plot and kill U.S. and allied soldiers and routinely harm innocent Afghan civilian men, women and children in their path. To better protect the lives of U.S. soldiers, now is the time for action, not simply paperwork and talk. There is no good reason that this group has not yet been designated."

As CNN's Security Clearance reported last week, the administration has already designated members of the Haqqani leadership as terrorists and subjected them to U.S. sanctions. There is some concern designating the entire group could mean labeling Pakistan a state-sponsor of terror at a time when Pakistan's cooperation is needed as combat operations in Afghanistan come to a close in 2014. "We are bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on the Haqqanis," Pentagon spokesman George Little said last week. "And we believe that on the Pakistani side of the border, that additional action needs to be taken by the Pakistanis to root out this network of militants that is a menace to Afghanistan and to Pakistan."

The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, and was brought to the House floor after an amendment was made to Rogers's initial bill that unequivocally declared that Congress believes the network meets the definition of an FTO, and should be designated as one by the State Department. An FTO designation allows the United States to freeze the group's assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and to prosecute individuals aiding or assisting the group with providing material support to terrorism. The bill now heads back to the Senate for consideration.

Granny says, "Good - now we can send a few Predator drones up their terrorist wazoo's...US declares Haqqani network a terrorist bodySep 7,`12 -- The Obama administration on Friday declared the insurgent Haqqani network a terrorist body, a move that could undermine Afghan peace efforts and test fragile U.S.-Pakistani relations.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she notified Congress of her decision, which bans Americans from doing any business with members of the Pakistan-based militant group and blocks any assets it holds in the United States. "We also continue our robust campaign of diplomatic, military, and intelligence pressure on the network, demonstrating the United States' resolve to degrade the organization's ability to execute violent attacks," she said in a statement.

Enraged by a string of high-profile attacks on U.S. and NATO troops, Congress gave Clinton a Sunday deadline to deliver a report on whether the Haqqanis should be designated and all of its members subjected to U.S. financial sanctions. Clinton's decision comes amid numerous disagreements within the administration about the wisdom of the designation. The U.S. already has placed sanctions on many Haqqani leaders and is targeting its members militarily. But it had held back from formally designating the al-Qaida-linked network a terrorist group over concerns it could jeopardize reconciliation efforts between the government and insurgents in Afghanistan, and ruffle feathers with Pakistan, the Haqqanis' longtime benefactor.

Washington long has branded the group among the biggest threats to American and allied forces in Afghanistan, and to that country's stability after American troops leave in 2014. A subsidiary of the Taliban, it is based in northern Pakistan but crosses the border to launch attacks, including a rocket-propelled grenade assault on the U.S. Embassy and NATO compound in Kabul in September. The Obama administration has been trying to coax Afghanistan's fighting groups into peace talks, offering the prospect of a Qatar-based political office for insurgents and even the transfer of several prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Negotiations have been dormant for months, and the Haqqanis have been among the least interested in talking.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official said the administration's decision could hurt U.S.-Pakistani relations and negatively impact the ongoing peace process with the Taliban. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The group also has enjoyed a close relationship with Pakistan. The U.S. and its often reluctant counterterrorism ally have been at loggerheads over the Haqqanis for years, with Washington accusing Islamabad of giving the network a free hand in the remote North Waziristan region and even providing it with some logistical support.

The US should not have turned its back on Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal, but of course that comes with hindsight. And granted, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, America's leaders' eyes were focused elsewhere. Still, our foreign policy apparatus has certainly had no qualms about getting into bed with some awful people in pursuing their goals. It should be mentioned though, as far as I know, that the CIA had little to do with issuing resources to the mujahideen; that job was tasked to Pakistan's ISI. Nevertheless we should have been more actively involved in deciding who we were supporting.

NATO to intensify efforts against Haqqani network...Allies 'cranking up heat' on Haqqani militants, US commander saysMarch 13, 2014 WASHINGTON  Allied and Afghan forces are putting a greater focus on going after the Haqqani militant network, which has threatened to disrupt the Afghan presidential elections in April, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Thursday.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told Defense Department reporters that the more energized effort against the Haqqanis includes a U.S. move to "crank up the heat" on the group's financing and freedom of movement. "The Haqqani network has been more active in some ways over the last few months, and so we have energized our efforts accordingly," said Dunford. The network has made it clear it will conduct high-profile attacks to disrupt the political process and create the perception of insecurity as Afghans go to the polls. The Haqqani network is blamed for some of the most high-profile attacks in Afghanistan. The U.S. has repeatedly pressed Pakistani authorities to move more aggressively against the militants, who are based in North Waziristan and routinely to conduct attacks against U.S. and coalition troops.

Dunford also gave reporters and lawmakers greater details on the U.S. plans as the war winds down and combat operations end on Dec. 31. Officials have long said the coalition of NATO and allied nations would leave 8,000 to 12,000 troops in the country to advise and assist Afghan forces as long as Afghanistan's leaders sign a key security agreement. In addition to that, Dunford said the U.S. would leave "some thousand" troops  largely special operations forces  to continue to conduct counterterrorism operations.

He said that any U.S. counterterror operations beyond 2014 would focus on al-Qaida, but since the Haqqani network presents the greatest threat to security forces, the U.S. would do whatever necessary to protect the troops. U.S. officials have said they want to leave about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, but it's not clear if the counterterrorism forces would be in addition to that. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, however, has refused to sign the agreement, prompting the White House to order the Pentagon to begin planning for a full withdrawal by the end of this year.

Dunford told members of the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that he would need 102 days to conduct an orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops and equipment and complete the transfer of any bases to the Afghans. As a result, he said the U.S. can wait until September for the Afghans to sign the agreement, but waiting beyond that would begin to make the withdrawal far more risky. The Pentagon is currently planning to cut the total American force in Afghanistan to as low as 20,000 by midsummer, giving commanders the ability to pull all troops out by Dec. 31 if no agreement is reached. There are currently about 33,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Military: 80 percent of Colombian drugs gets to USMarch 13, 2014 WASHINGTON  The U.S. doesn't have the ships and surveillance capabilities to go after the illegal drugs flowing into the U.S. from Latin America, the top military commander for the region told senators Thursday, adding that the lack of resources means he has to "sit and watch it go by."

Gen. John Kelly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he is able to get about 20 percent of the drugs leaving Colombia for the U.S., but the rest gets through. Aided by surveillance planes, radar, human intelligence capabilities and other assets, Kelly said he has "very good clarity" on the drug traffickers who are moving the drugs out of Colombia and through the Caribbean Sea. But much of the time, he said, "I simply sit and watch it go by. And because of service cuts, I don't expect to get any immediate relief in terms of assets to work with in this region of the world."

Kelly, who heads U.S. Southern Command, said he would be able to interdict more drugs if he had 16 ships that could be used as the base for helicopters. Generally, law enforcement officials use the helicopters to quickly go after traffickers operating small boats, forcing them to stop and surrender. Currently, Kelly said he has one U.S. Navy ship and two Coast Guard vessels that can be used for the drug operations. The overall goal has been to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Latin America by 40 percent, which officials believe would cut into the profits of the cartels and perhaps turn them against each other. To reach that goal, he said, would require the 16 ships.

Asked by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether he has enough airborne surveillance capabilities, Kelly said he's got about half of what he needs. He said he uses Navy P-3 Orions and other aircraft, and often can take advantage of training flights that happen to be in his region - asking them to watch what's moving across the Caribbean. Kelly added that he has seen an increase in the amount of drugs that are being moved through the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. The traffic through Puerto Rico is a particular problem, he said, because there are no U.S. Customs restrictions so packages can be sent easily through the mail.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!